Not that you noticed anyway. But then, I really don't suspect that you remember much of what others say or that you can tell what people are like from the myriads of posts they make.L Gilbert none of your post on this thread indicates that you are in any way opposed to raping conservative women.
Scroll back a few posts and you will discover my impression about the subject.Would you be just as much in favour of raping liberal women?
Make a poll if you are actually that curious about it.Silly, me for asking such a question!
A corresponding list of liberal women would be:
Hillary Clinton
Helen Thomas
Whoopie Goldberg
Susan Sarandon
Madeline Albright
Barbra Streisand
Nancy Pelosi
Barbara Walters
Susan Estrich
Eleanor Clift
Who in their right mind would touch any of these even wearing oven gloves?
Recently there was an article in Playboy Magazine by a fellow called Guy Cimbalo.
Its topic was so saturated in typical liberal hatred and obscenities, that even that piece of journalistic pornographic garbage, masquarading as a magazine, PLAYBOY, had the decency (or perhaps was forced into) remove the article.
The article listed ten prominent women of conservative values. The author expressed desire to rape them all. Of course, he did not have the courage to say so, so he just referred to his sick desires - again, in typical liberal fashion, with obscenity - not as rape, but as "HATE F**K".
I will provide no specific link. I refuse to promote sick, liberal garbage. Just do a google using 'playboy conservative women'.
Some posters here claim that conservatives/Republicans are masters of personal destruction. SirJosephPorter comes to mind. Expect his response to this post
defending PLAYBOY and Cimbalo.
I don't know. I haven't found it and prejudging is a silly thing to do, IMO.No I haven't. But I can't imagine that it's articles would be too bright, or am I wrong?
Once in a while I'd grab one because I spotted an article or short story by Kurt Vonnegut, some article on Bora Bora (or someplace I haven't been), etc. mentioned on the cover. I always liked the graceful beauty of a woman's figure, but I have one at home so I don't need another. Fortunately, I find nothing disgusting about them, unlike other people apparently.Playboy.com - Sex, Sexy Women, Hot Girls, Nude Women, Naked Pics, Nude Videos, Playmates, Cyber Girls, Centerfolds, Playboy Magazine, Celebrities, Articles
Anyway, here's the Playboy site. Nice pics, but I'm not going to waste my time finding an intelligent article in there. If there is one, I'm ready to be proven wrong.
Again, I have no idea.Granted, you're right. Maybe the articles serve as a counterbalance. I wonder if there are alot of socially conservative journaists working for Playboy?
Only if the reader allows that to happen. Wife and I both agree on the artistic merit of a woman's body, though. And she's a woman. Actually we agree on the merits of the human body overall. As far as porn goes, we don't find it all that fascinating.Nothing disgusting as such, but I do find that it objectifies a woman. But that's for another thread.
lol I have noticed the odd silly thing in SciAM for that matter. But then intelligence is widely varied.But yes, I may be wrong. Maybe Playboy does have intelligent articles.
Playboy is a hard read
Good overall point. I disagree about a few things, but Joey actually has a point. Hoooooorah!PLAYBOY, had the decency (or perhaps was forced into) remove the article.
Yukon, if the article was removed, what is all the fuss about? Your outrage comes across as phony. If the article had been published, then one could discuss whether it was appropriate, what it says about Playboy etc. But since the article was not published, the article says nothing at all about playboy.
But it does say something about oyu, that you would manufacture a scandal where there isn’t one.
And you can be sure that nobody can force Playboy to remove the article. Playboy is not going to buckle under to the religious right mafia. If religious right had demanded that the article be removed, you can be sure that Playboy definitely would have kept it in, the resulting controversy would have skyrocketed the sales of Playboy.
No, Playboy probably thought that the article was over the top and removed it. I don’t see a story or anything here.
That means that there at least 3 million people living in the U.S. who are addicted to pornography. Not to mentionthose who read the digital edition. Or those in other countries who are immoral enough to allow Playboy on their shelves (provided their wives and kids don't find the filth).
If the demography of Playboy readers is in the 20-35 range, I feel sorry for the future generations, and at the same time I am glad I will not be here to see the results. Having the emotional age of 14 at 20-35? Pity.
Missed Liberalman's point. It was a polear point rather stiffly expressed.Too intellectual, to highbrow for me.